bool_subtract

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states the operation but does not clarify whether the original solids are modified or destroyed, what happens if subtraction results in a fully removed part, or any return behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a potentially destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the verb, the object, the example outcome, and the parameter semantics. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important behavioral context such as whether the operation is destructive and what happens with invalid handles or fully-removed keep solids. For a boolean modifier in a CAD environment, this is a notable gap, though the core usage is adequately covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meaning by explaining that 'keep_handles' are the part to retain and 'subtract_handles' are the tools to remove. This goes beyond the bare schema by defining not just types but the functional roles of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Subtract' with a clear resource 'solids' and explains the semantic outcome ('holes, pockets'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling boolean tools like bool_union and bool_intersect by defining the keep/subtract roles unambiguously.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly explains the roles of the two parameters ('keep = the part, subtract = the tools'), which implicitly tells the agent how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward boolean subtraction operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.